Thursday, March 28, 2013

Here is a redux of an old post I did. It comes in reaction to the latest round of culture war around the issue of homosexuality, particularly making "gay marriage" legal. As usual, some who are promoting gay marriage and desirous of everyone to join them (complete with strange red/pink equal sign symbols), are throwing around the "homophobic" label to categorize those who oppose gay marriage.

So, I will post again on this subject.

I disagree with many things but I am not scared of them, nor do I hate them. To attach "phobic" to someone should mean a person has an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, situation, or practice.

For example, before 1995 significant heights didn't bother me, but after trimming trees in St. Louis for a full year something changed. I was roped in to a huge sycamore tree trimming the middle level of limbs when an inexplicable fear overcame me. I was suspended about 30 feet in the air, securely roped in with a harness, but something about my perspective changed and I could no longer climb and work at those heights from that day til now. As a hunter I utilize tree stands but I cannot set them higher than 15 feet or I begin to get a panicky feeling I can only describe as a phobia concerning heights. On the ground I have tremendous balance, it's hard to knock me over, but I have a sense I will lose my balance and fall when at heights over 15 feet. It's not logical or rational. The "experts" would say I have Acrophobia, Altophobia, Batophobia, Hypsiphobia or Hyposophobia. Bottom line, I'm scared of heights. I'll admit to being "phobic" as it relates to being way up there.

Not too long ago I received an anonymous post accusing me of being "homophobic". In my mind a proper definition of "homophobia" should be an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of homosexuals or homosexuality, right? Well, that's not me at all. In fact, I have friends I love dearly who are practicing homosexuals. I am not scared of them nor do I hate them, in fact, I love them very much. Further, I'm not scared of homosexual practice in general either. Sex between two people of the same gender doesn't evoke fear, freight, terror, or anything of the sort. Even the concept of two men or two women wanting the right to call their union "marriage" doesn't scare me. I don't become enraged when I hear the idea being proposed and I don't have visions of people I hate or even dislike when the matter is debated in print, on the radio, or on television. I am scared of heights. I am phobic about heights. I am not scared of homosexuality or those who practice it, therefore I am not homophobic no matter how diligently a person would strain to label me as such.

I disagree with a great many things but I do not fear them or hate them. I disagree with worldviews that put man at the center, but I do not fear such a perspective. I disagree with doctrine that insists man is responsible to choose Christ as if salvation rests on man's volition, but I do not fear such a perspective. I disagree with political ideology that sees government as having a widespread role in the lives of the citizens it represents, but I do not fear such an ideology or practice. I disagree with sexual practice that happens outside the bounds of a marriage, but I do not fear pre or extra marital sex. I disagree that marriage can be defined in any way other than between one man and one woman, but I do not fear people wanting to "marry" someone of the same sex or the notion of a person wanting to "marry" their dog for that matter. I'll never think of such unions as marriage, but I'm not scared of the concept or of people who disagree with me. I disagree with a great many things because I think they will lead in a direction that is harmful. In some of the cases I disagree because God calls them sin. I don't fear sin as such. I fear where sin leads. I fear what sin will bring about. But I do not fear sin itself because Jesus has ultimately conquered sin and it's final outcome by His victory on the cross for those in union with Him by faith.

Again, I disagree with a great many things, but I do not fear them. So why call me homophobic?

The label homophobic doesn't really mean what it says. By calling me homophobic I am being accused of ignorantly or hatefully opposing homosexuality. The label is applied in pejorative way to paint me as having an illogical or irrational disagreement with homosexual practice. Of course, I do disagree with homosexual practice (or any pre/extra marital sexual practice), but I maintain a logical and rational reason for my opposition (the subject of a different post). "Homophobic" attempts to paint a person as unthinking, bigoted, and scared of something he or she doesn't agree with. I simply contest such a label doesn't help the dialogue and the effort to understand each other.

Disagreement does not mean phobia therefore it is at least dishonest to label me a homophobe, at worst it's "hate speech" against me.

Friday, March 8, 2013

As a member of the "separated brethren", I should be eligible for Pope, right? Historically there have been people named Bishop just barely after becoming a priest (Ambrose, for one). Why wouldn't I be considered (being Reformed, married, and American, not withstanding) ?

Quite a few popes were married in the first millennium of the Papacy. Very interestingly in papal history is Benedict IX. He resigned the papacy in order to marry. Never mind the reports of Pope Victor III who said of Benedict IX "His life as a pope was so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

For those who have never identified with Roman Catholicism, some set up is needed to appreciate this latest satirical offering by the Lutheran satirists.

A pet peeve of most devout Roman Catholics is the way certain people will trumpet their Catholicism publicly while rarely attending Mass and living lives that show almost no care for the church's convictions and teachings. Now, when it's time to choose a new Pope, such dissident voices arise and demand this or that feature of the next Pontiff. The woman in this clip represents that kind of "Roman Catholic".

Monday, March 4, 2013

John Knox was a bold witness for Christ and His Word during the middle part of the Sixteenth Century. Knox had fascinating interchange with the oppressive Queen Mary. Despite a good chance he would be burned at the stake, when he had an audience with Mary, he confronted the errors of Romanism to which she somewhat blindly adhered. Here is just a small sample of the conversation.

Queen Mary:Ye interpret the Scriptures in one manner, and they (Roman Catholics) in another. Whom shall I believe? Who shall be judge?

John Knox:Ye shall believe God, that plainly speaketh in His Word; and further than the Word teacheth you, ye shall believe neither the one nor the other. The Word of God is plain in itself. If there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, which is never contrarious to Himself, explaineth the same more clearly in other places; so that there can remain no doubt, but unto such as obstinately will remain ignorant. Take one of the chief points, Madam, which this day is in controversy betwixt the Papists and us. The Papists have boldly affirmed that the Mass is the ordinance of God, and the institution of Jesus Christ, and a sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead. We deny both the one and the other. We affirm that the Mass, as it is now used, is nothing but the invention of man, and, therefore, is an abomination before God, and no sacrifice that ever God commanded. Now, Madam, who shall judge betwixt us two thus contending? It is no reason that either of the parties be further believed, than they are able to prove by insuspect witnessing. Let them prove their affirmatives by the plain words of the Book of God, and we shall give them the plea granted. What our Master Jesus Christ did, we know by His Evangelists; what the priest doeth at his Mass, the world seeth. Now, doth not the Word of God plainly assure us, that Christ Jesus neither said Mass, nor yet commanded Mass to be said, at His Last Supper, seeing that no such thing as their Mass is made mention of within the whole Scriptures?'See the whole interchange here.

Friday, March 1, 2013

We have the biggest spending government in the history of our nation. These same leaders have managed to manufacture fiscal crisis after fiscal crisis, with the latest being the so-called "sequester" amounting to $84 billion in cuts. I know these cuts will be felt by many, but honestly, this should be just the beginning of a total restructuring of the nation's budgeting, spending, and taxing. We need SO many more cuts. Unfortunately, the current leaders, especially prompted by the executive branch, show no signs of responsible moderation.

Don Vito Corleone

Lloyd and Harry

My favorite quote from Reepicheep

Taken from 'The Voyage of the Dawn Treader' concerning whether or not the ship should return home or press forward into the unknown -

"Aren't you going to say anything, Reep?" whispered Lucy.

"No. Why should your Majesty expect it?" answered Reepicheep in a voice that most people heard.

"My own plans are made. While I can, I sail east in the Dawn Treader. When she fails me, I paddle east in my coracle. When she sinks, I shall swim east with my four paws. And when I can swim no longer, if I have not reached Aslan's country, or shot over the edge of the world in some vast cataract, I shall sink with my nose to the sunrise and Peepiceek will be head of the talking mice in Narnia."

Why "Reepicheep"?

Reepicheep is descended from a group of mice who gnawed through the ropes that bound Aslan to the Stone Table after the White Witch had killed him; as a result of their service, they became talking mice. In Prince Caspian, Reepicheep is the leader of the twelve mice who help to fight against Caspian's Uncle Miraz in the Second Battle of Beruna at Aslan's How. He and his followers run through the battle and plunge their rapiers into an unsuspecting enemy's foot, causing him to fall, after which he is quickly dispatched. Reepicheep did not view his life as his own. He was fiercely loyal to Caspian, but ultimately to Aslan, the King of Kings. This attitude of loyalty must be my attitude toward the Church, and ultimately, the King and Head of the Church, the Lord Jesus Christ. Reepicheep is one of my favorite characters in all of literature because of his loyalty to the King. Despite his lack of size, ability, and power, he zealously guards the honor of the King. He sees his honor as being united to the King. He sees his life only in relationship to the King. Reepicheep was dead to himself and alive to the King and service to him.
I want to serve King Jesus with the loyalty of Reepicheep.